Justin Bieber: Senator Klobuchar Should Be Locked Up For Felony Streaming Bill

from the free-bieber,-jail-klobuchar dept

Earlier today we wrote about how Justin Bieber's lawyers were threatening the folks behind the FreeBieber advocacy project, which highlights some of the problems with Senator Amy Klobuchar's dangerous and ill-thought out bill to make streaming video a possible felony. It appears that his "people" didn't discuss this much with Bieber himself. During a radio interview, the host asked Bieber about the law, explaining how it would make streaming a felony, and his response was that Klobuchar "should be locked up," a point he reiterated a few times.

They then go on to discuss it a bit, and Bieber talks about the importance of being able to upload and stream videos and to perform other people's songs. He talks about how people "need the freedom" to perform songs. He also notes that it's "awesome" when others perform his works. Of course, Klobuchar's office claims that Bieber must have "misunderstood" the bill, but he's right. The bill is "silly," and targets exactly the wrong thing. It's good to see him speaking out on this subject, and it shows how Klobuchar (and the House supporters of E-PARASITE, which also has a similar felony streaming law), need to rethink this bill.

Re: Klobuchar

Re: Re: Klobuchar

Did she mention that she was going to pass IP expansion laws before she got elected? Was it one of her campaign points? No? Why not? Could it be because she knew that doing so is a sure way to lose an election?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Klobuchar

You honestly believe the politicians themselves open their own snail mail? It's the same intern who responds to both - one is no more weighted than the other - they are equally ignored unless accompanied by a fat overstuffed envelope with sufficient amounts of money to get their attention.

I do not find the opinion of a 17 year old boy from Canada who has certainly not read the bill and the amendment it would make to Title 17 particularly compelling.

Perhaps if one took the time to read the current incarnation of the relevant criminal statute they would quickly realize that blog-o-sphere wailing such as here is viscerally, and not factually, based.

Re:

You didn't actually read the article did you? Ironic that you would encourage others to read the relevant criminal status but skip reading the article you're commenting on. Just to catch you up, the article isn't just about his position on the bill. There's also the legal entanglement with the FreeBieber project to consider so the primary point of the quote is to highlight that it's clearly his lawyers, bankrolled by his label, that are behind the legal threats there.

Furthermore, I've read the current incarnation of the relevant criminal status and the wailing seems factually based to me. However, if you have a point that does not simply rely on implying everyone who opposes you is stupid or uninformed by all means make it.

Re: Re: Re:

The article has two paragraphs and the entire first paragraph, fully half of the article, is devoted to pointing out the incongruity between Bieber and his lawyers. The second half expands on Bieber's actual position which flows directly from the first paragraph's observation that it's incongruous with the stance of the lawyers. Again, are you sure you've actually read and understood it?

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, it would be dreadful for a seventeen year old to be as retarded as most of those who advocate for stricter IP laws and enforcement policies (or at least most Techdirt advocates). So, yeah, I agree with your statement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Or, maybe he hates copyright. Can you point to one thing Mike has said that leads you to believe that he doesn't hate copyright in general? Of course not. The way you idiotic sycophants defend this douche bag is so amusing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And you'll persist in taking anything he says that isn't "hang the pirates!" as support of infringement. Only fools deal in absolutes. There's a difference between supporting something illegal and opposing unjust portions of a law that are directly involved in it.

You're just delusional and aching for something to pin the "pirate supporter" flag on his head that you start seeing "evidence" everywhere.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike loves piracy. Mike hates copyright. One does not necessarily follow from the other (for example, one could hate piracy yet also hate copyright). There's no dilemma in play, false or otherwise. You Mike-apologists are really stretching the bounds of reason here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Here's a quote from Mike himself, from an older article:

"I've pointed out time and time again that I don't, in any way, condone unauthorized file sharing. I don't participate in it, and I don't think people should do so, though I certainly understand why many do."

So reading that quote, how can you still say Mike "loves piracy"?

Read it, read it again, read it a third time. Pause. Realize that it is just one of MANY examples that proves you completely and totally wrong. Realize that repeating what you do over and over in every single article every single day DOES NOT make what you say right and will not make it come true if you keep saying it over and over and over like a broken record.

What will it take to get you to stfu and quit saying the same incorrect thing over and over? If we give you a cookie will you go away? You know, there's this thing, it's called Google (but there are other options available), they let you make your own blog. Where you can rant to your hearts content if you want. And others can read what you write. You can hate on "freetards" all day long and praise Buddah about things like E-PARASITE and all kinds of other nonsense. Why don't you just go do that? Make your own blog and get lost.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You can read it a thousand times. It's on par with a drug dealer saying "he doesn't love crack", but he happily makes his living off of it.

Mike doesn't condone piracy, but his business ideas depend on it. If piracy went back to being a lower level thing, everyone would be back to buying and selling music and movies, and the whole "sell the scarce" thing would go back to being what it is, a nice add on to a great existing business.

It's also amazing to watch Mike stand up for the rights of pirate sites, and to support them as they play the old "we don't host it" game of chicken with copyright holders. He encourages them in their actions, and pretty much endlessly supports the infrastructure of piracy.

He may not condone piracy in and of itself, but without it, he's just another random blogger.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

he has repeatedly said he does not approve of piracy because its against the law. he's also said he does not approve of stricter copyright. What he has done was point out study after study that shows that the law is have a disastrous effect on the economy and the creative industry and its going in the wrong direction.

IP maximists try to claim something to the extent of "stricter IP laws are what the American public want". If this is true then give me a single example of a politician running for office while publicly declaring that if he gets elected, she will expand IP law and s/he will expand its enforcement. It doesn't happen. Politicians know that this is a sure way to lose an election. The American people are against our strict IP laws and the are against making those laws, and its enforcement, even stricter.

I want a representative government, darn it, and substantially redacting IP law is what a representative government ought to do.

Re:

I didn't vote for these IP laws. Our politicians didn't tell us that they were going to expand IP laws before getting elected because they know darn well that doing so is a sure way to lose an election. So why are they suddenly expanding IP law? Abolish these laws!!!!

In 2007 he strongly suggests creating reform that will reduce the scope of ridiculous patents and allow for an easier, cheaper, and more efficient invalidation process

"Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a "gold-plated" patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration."

Re: Re: Re: Re:

(yet, here he is/was, trying to make pro-IP negotiations like ACTA and TPP in secrecy. Of course, now that he must re-run for election, he'll likely back away from these negotiations for the time being and has been. They'll spring right back up if he gets re-elected. He knows darn well that these negotiations are not good for his election strategy).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, you have all misread this. No one is taking a position that patents terms shoudl be reduced from 20 years. The 7 year term referenced in all these articles is for the exclusivity of data used to achieve marketing approval from the FDA ... in order to get approval to market a drug in the US it costs about $1b to do the clinical research and trials necessary to convince the FDA that it works and is safe. This data cannot be relied upon by your competitors for 7 years. Seems fair that the company that did all the work and made the investment doesn't see it immediately turned over to others that didn't.

Obama did sign a bill recently that will improve the patent process and hopefully improve patent quality leading to less litigation. We can all agree on that.

and I'm not sure how you're reading the articles but Obama was proposing to shorten the effective monopoly length. I remember seeing it on the news, and when the pharma companies opposed it, he later changed his mind and dropped the issue.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Obama did sign a bill recently that will improve the patent process and hopefully improve patent quality leading to less litigation."

That's already been discussed here on Techdirt a few times. We're already aware of this bill and the fact that it will likely do little to actually help fix the problems and may even make it worse in some respects.

Re: Re: Re:

I regret I did not bookmark the policy paper when I read it last evening. During the campaign such papers were issued on a host of matters, and the one relevant to the subject included in its title "innovation and technology". The last few paragraphs outline the position on this issue, which paragraphs were most certainly written by a specific academic who lifted the language from her prior publications and pasted it into the policy paper.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I now recall that the academic's name is Beth Noveck. Her academic credentials are in the areas of social studies and comparative literature, and yet she has not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on the law and process associated with patents. Despite the lack of any relevant credentials in either technology or patent law, she sits in the Technology Office of the Executive Office. Small wonder that the Executive Office seems off kilter in this subject matter area.

Reading the bill is always a good start

Setting up a business to profit from streaming someone else’s works is already a federal misdeamor in the U.S. Senator Klobuchar’s bill simply makes streaming huge amounts of copyrighted material for a profit a federal felony. At a time when sites like megavideo are making millions by stealing and streaming thousands of high-quality videos – including 437 of Bieber – raising seriousness of this crime is a necessary deterrent.

Current law already requires criminal intent - willful infringement of a work – the U.S. Attorney General would certainly not determine this in the case of a tween singing a cover in his bedroom.

The purpose of this legislation is not to go after your friends and family who try to enjoy and recreate the music they love. The bill is an effort to go after those who try and use the professional work of the music industry unfairly and are trying to make money off of these unfair practices. Please read the bill and do not believe the hype. Here's a blog post about it: http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/ ... -campaign/

Re:

The purpose of this legislation is not to go after your friends and family who try to enjoy and recreate the music they love. The bill is an effort to go after those who try and use the professional work of the music industry unfairly and are trying to make money off of these unfair practices.

Those of you who feel skeptical of this bill's merits need to read it more closely. Punishing willful infringement that is done for criminal purposes is nothing new in the United States. All Sen. Klobuchar is trying to do-and I thank her for doing it-is elevate the punishment for illegal streaming, which has become a problem in today's technology-centric culture. Please, if you are one of many echoing Justin Bieber's remarks, I urge you to research the tenets of the bill, S. 978, more thoroughly